Sunday, June 05, 2016

The Real Threat To Unions

Stan Godlewski, Hartford Courant

As June opened, the
State Democratic Party held a fundraiser in Hartford. The usual political
celebrities were in attendance, along with deep-pocket notables. For once in a
long while, state unions in Connecticut were on the outside looking in – and
protesting.

It was a difficult moment
for union-friendly Democratic politicians.
Passing by State AFL-CIO President Lori Pelletier, Comptroller Kevin
Lembo paused for a moment, bussed Ms. Pelletier on the cheek, acknowledged the
protesters, and moved into the Hartford Convention Center to join those hawking
for money at the Democratic Party fund-raising event.

Money, everyone
knows, is the mother’s milk of politics. A political organization without money
has no power; for power, the ability to convert ideas into practice flows in
the rut of money. U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, one of the attendees at the fundraiser,
has often complained that he must spend a good portion of his time in Congress
on the phone, chatting up large donors, a painful process familiar to all
office holders. The public is beginning to notice the money-power connection, a
constant theme of Bernie Sanders’ quixotic quest for the Presidency on the
Democratic Party ticket. These days, every politician is bought by someone, and
Democratic politicians are by no means safe from the politically fatal
accusation that influential donors have them on a short leash. Republicans are
often cited as being the party of the rich, but in truth the fat-cats on Wall
Street against whom Mr. Sanders has raised a stink contribute equally to both
parties.

Many of the union
protesters wearing shirts emblazoned with the motto “UNION POWER” likely were Sanders
supporters. All of them want Governor Dannel Malloy’s “progressive” government
to take a stick to rich people in Connecticut, boost the progressive income
tax, and cease and desist grinding the faces of the poor. But in fact, as Policy Director of the Yankee Institute Suzanne Bates reminds us, the Malloy administration did raise taxes on the rich; Mr. Malloy
and progressive Democrats in the General Assembly, bowing to union pressure,
increased the top tax rate “for single people making over $500,000, or a
married couple making over $1 million” by 0.29 percent, a measure that was supposed
to increase personal income tax receipts by $151.5 million. Despite the
progressive knock on the rich, income tax receipts “continue to decline -- dropping
$425 million below projections made before taxes were increased.” In its
downward plunge, Connecticut is beginning to taste the bitter fruit of
diminishing returns: It is no longer true in Connecticut that more taxes mean
more revenue.

Mr. Malloy,
attempting to adjust a chronically out-of-balance budget, has sworn off raising
taxes, because Connecticut, which has not yet recovered fully from the
Bush-Obama recession, is heavily reliant for its tax revenue on large financial
operations in the state; in addition, Connecticut is losing revenue as one-percenters and large
companies move to less punishing, low-tax, low-regulatory environments. In his
recent budget, Mr. Malloy, the architect of the largest and second largest tax
increases in Connecticut history, facing yet another deficit, did what previous
Connecticut governors have done from time immemorial: He cut spending across
the board, shifted dedicated funds from one to another non-lockbox spending
pile, and announced some layoffs. State workers in the executive and judicial
branches so far have received only half of the 1,900-to-2,000 layoff notices “the
governor said two months ago that he anticipated being ordered by June 10,” according to a posting in CTMirror.

Following the boycotted fund gathering event, union rank and file protesters,
including Ms. Pelletier, disbanded, no doubt congratulating themselves on
having made an important political point or two. Only a hand full of
protesters showed up. Many influential in the labor movement were in attendance
at other events, and some accessed the fund raiser through other entrances, perhaps
fearing backlash from the politicians and the rank and file to which they
pander.

In the absence of structural changes in how government gets and spends
revenue, “necessary” layoffs will continue; however, all state unions
are facing an existential
threat in new administrative reforms being pressed upon states
by the national AFL-CIO union leadership.

At a meeting last March, Ms. Pelletier advised union members that a
“mandatory reorganization of all the Central Labor Councils (CLCs)” had been put on the
table. The National AFL-CIO, Ms. Pelletier told the group, according to minutes
of the meeting, “wants this reorganization to be completed by June of this
year.” The reorganization would entail an"agreed upon” confiscation
of all per capita income -- i.e. union dues paid by all the Central Labor Councils
CLCs.

Under the new arrangement, CLCs would be reformed into “Chapters.” Money and authority would flow from disbanded CLCs to an “area
organization(s),” a new group of labor business administrators “which all the
chapters are a part of,” according to a message issued by AFL-CIO Northeast
Guild Officer Jan Schaffer.

Following the establishment of the provisionally titled “Regional
Federation of Labor” apparatus -- targeted to be in place by the end of June --
protesters at the concluded Democratic Party fund raiser likely will see a
money raid on reorganized CLC bank accounts by the new mandated regional
apparatus. And (see above) he who has the money will forcefully wield power under pain of non-compliance. Under the new arrangement, CLCs would lose theirmuch prized autonomy
to as yet uninstalled administrators, who then would parcel out funds andmarching orders
to former CLCs -- renamed“Chapters” in a larger book written
by regional or even national leaders.

Little ornone of this information has yet filtered down
to union rank and file members. Only delegates and those with approved credentials are allowed to attend the meeting at Connecticut’s annual AFL-CIO
convention in Hartford on June 9th and 10th. One may expect
resistance from delegates not in agreement the new national AFL-CIO edict, but
thatresistance can only begin after rank and file unionized workers
become aware that delegates and other decision makers have failed to be
transparent with members not privy to orders from above issued by leaders who
fear transparency and honest dealing.